I don’t think I have much to say here other than to urge you to read this great article from the Guardian. I suppose it’s merely a very big advertisement for a new tv special by Dawkins for the BBC called ‘The Genius of Dawkins’ which “sets out to calmly and lucidly explaina) Why Darwin was so ace, and b) Just how much evidence there is to support his findings.”

What I found amusing was the analogy of science being that really good friend who tells you not what you want to hear, but what you need to hear. It reminded me of a Sex in the City episode (clear giveaway I’m not single here) where the girls are sitting around chatting and the redhead can’t figure out why some guy isn’t calling her. Each friend makes up complex excuses for how he could be busy, shy, intimidated, etc, but then Carrie’s boyfriend, who was stuck there listening to all this crap finally blurts out, “maybe he’s just not into you.” The girls are shocked and appalled of course. How could he possibly say that? Thankfully the redhead found his candor refreshing and in fact was better off once she accepted that possibility.

The author, Charlie Brooker, brought up three reasons why people are wary of scientists, but #3 is the most important and the one we deal with a lot here in the US:3) They’re always spoiling our fun, pointing out homeopathy doesn’t work or ghosts don’t exist EVEN THOUGH they KNOW we REALLY, REALLY want to believe in them.

Reality, it’s a bitch. Tough shit. Suck it up, cupcakes. Enough with the “I can’t see how…” or “I wouldn’t want to live in a world where…” or “You can’t prove god (or ghosts, or bigfoot or ghosts or Nessie) isn’t real so it’s reasonable to believe.” Enough already. You’re all just making excuses to indulge in fantasies rather than face reality, and this happens the most after some big tragedy. “Oh god works in mysterious ways.” Yeah, or maybe he’s just not into you, or any of us, or maybe he’s just not there at all.

A rather comical and insightful bit from the article I want to share is this:

If the Bible had contained a passage that claimed gravity is caused by God pulling objects toward the ground with magic invisible threads, we’d still be debating Newton with idiots too.

And I’d add that all of us would be called “Newtonists” no doubt by those idiots.

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that there’s no such thing as a straight single guy who enjoys watching Sex in the City? Can you prove that a straight single guy who enjoys watching Sex in the City doesn’t exist? I can’t see how you can deny that there’s a straight single guy who watches Sex in the City, when it’s obvious to so many people that everybody likes that show. Anyway, I wouldn’t want to live in a world without straight single guys who watch Sex in the City.

Well every straight guy watches it at least a few times. I mean you’ve got “sex” in the title, attractive women and it’s HBO. Eventually once the hopes for seeing sex, or simply just plenty of hot chick nakedness are dashed, then that’s the end to that.

In the mean time, there’s a whole generation of boys growing up with the name Aidan who may never know why they were named that. Even their fathers don’t know.

So if anyone finds this Dawkins special on a torrent or something, please post a link. Thanks.

I do enjoy British accents. Maybe I should start a poll – what British accent would you want. Well it would have to be a write in, not multiple choice, although that could be funny. Poof, punter or pundit?

I think a Gordon Ramsey voice would fit me, although in a debate I think I’d prefer a Cleese.

My favourite quote from the article? “What was it that spooked them so? Probably natural selection’s lack of reassuring narrative.” We are brought up on fairy tales, just-so stories, Santa Claus and Jehayzus and (though some do grow up and embrace reality) many people (they seem to be a majority in the USA (not to mention my office)) just cannot grasp that the universe does not operate like those ‘reassuring narratives’ of our childhood.

Please note that I wrote this with an English accent (note the spelling of ‘favourite’).

Also, please note, I am straight (married, two kids (great cover, eh?)) and have never watched “Sex in the City.” I was unnaware it existed until after it was off the air.

Evo: Happily married to a woman for 19 years (though we were married in Massachesetts), two kids, four cats, minivan (seriously, who but a straight married guy would ever be seen in a mini van?), football fan (a real team, not the Chiefs), baseball fan, hockey fan, gymnastics and figure skating fan, skier (well, I used to be before the Army destroyed my knee), and you should see the way I dress on my days off. What other evidence may I offer?

That’s nice. Can you put it in context? In other words, how did say he was?

Let me direct you to a blog posting at the NY Times, which is reprinted at RichardDawkins.net, entitled “Let’s Get Rid of Darwinism”:

Then there are the words: Darwinism (sometimes used with the prefix “neo”), Darwinist (ditto), Darwinian.

Why is this a problem? Because it’s all grossly misleading. It suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin.”

He wasn’t, and it has. Although several of his ideas — natural and sexual selection among them — remain cornerstones of modern evolutionary biology, the field as a whole has been transformed. If we were to go back in a time machine and fetch him to the present day, he’d find much of evolutionary biology unintelligible — at least until he’d had time to study genetics, statistics and computer science.

I think that pretty much sums up why using “Darwinian” for anyone who accepts evolution is a mistake. Why, in light of that obvious fact, creationists use it of course is clear – they want to reduce acceptance of the theory to dogmatic veneration of a man, painting it as a cult of sorts. It’s always quite amusing though to see things like this, because it’s like religious people are saying, “look, they’re no better than us”.

Logy:Well, your evidence for its relevance seems backwards to me. Philly’s comment came after yours, by more than half an hour.

I’m still highly dubious that you actually read The Selfish Gene. You’ve made this claim in a number of places throughout the Atheosphere, but you don’t actually seem to know what the book is about.

Also, if you don’t have the book in front of you, how do you know exactly what Dawkins said. I assume you didn’t memorize the entire text. Could you give us the edition and page number as a reference? And, just as a test, could you tell us the first and last words of the very next page?

Understanding of a quote is impossible without context. That’s something you’d know if understanding mattered to you instead of scoring points. The fact that you vaguely remember a statement but fail to remember it’s meaning and can’t place it in context is quite telling.

The NY Times post was addressed partly to ignorant point scorers like you Rho but mostly to those ignorant and ambivalent towards evolution who have or might use “Darwinian” instead of evolution. It was not an appeal to the scientific community or even those with rudimentary knowledge of evolution. That is it’s relevance.

Thanks for reminding me about Logy’s points. I’m going to have to petition his god to deduct ten of them on the grounds that Logy blatantly lied about having read The Selfish Gene. That’s allegedly a sin, right, Philly? I’m kinda thinking that lying might cost more than 10 points, but I’ll leave that between the two of them.

Well as always, it depends on interpretation. They’re forbidden to bear false witness against their neighbor. Now imo, it should have stopped at witness, making it an absolute. By adding the second part, it removes it from being an absolute so one could rationalize bearing false witness against anyone they didn’t consider as a neighbor.

Of course even if they did stop at witness, they’d still be able to weasel out of it probably. Look at “thou shalt not kill”. Sounds like an absolute to me, yet plenty of killing done by self-professed christians. Hell, you can do anything you want as long as you repent before you croak. That’s how it works.

“Neighbor” is not defined as just whatever, biblically, you know. At least have the courage to engage the actual Christian position rather than a strawman. Again.

I bring up the Darwinian thing b/c a prominent Darwinian happily claimed that label for himself. You seem to be complaining about it – I remind you to look to your betters for an example of your misguidedness.

Oh, and appeals to authority don’t work over here, so your Dawkins point, even if you could prove it, is still meaningless. Why is that so hard for religious people to grasp? You don’t have to agree with it, but you can at least recognize that it carries no weight over here. I don’t agree with appeals to authority yet I recognize such things work over on the religious side.

So, Logy, you don’t remember a damn thing about the content of The Selfish Gene, but you do “remember” vividly one random quote that you can’t even reference?

That’s just out-and-out bullshit.

As far as I can remember, although you’ve misrepresented and mischaracterized various arguments, and bent or ignored the truth in manhy of your comments and responses, you’ve never stooped to downright lies before. But this one is a doozy.

Well I’m getting to another post. For once my problem is not what to write, but what not to write, because I have multiple things on my mind at the moment.

As for hostility, what’s the problem? I don’t see rainbows and bunnies picking flowers with puppies and kittens in the header of this blog, nor is there a pastel color in sight. I think you must be looking for the rainbowflowersbunniespuppieskittens blog. You came here by mistake, no doubt due to the left turn at Albuquerque.

Based on his interpretation of certain biblical passages, Rowbotham published a 16-page pamphlet, which he later expanded into a 430-page book, Earth Not a Globe, expounding his views. According to Rowbotham’s system, which he called “Zetetic Astronomy”, the earth is a flat disk centered at the North Pole and bounded along its southern edge by a wall of ice, with the sun and moon 3000 miles (4800 km) and the “cosmos” 3100 miles (5000 km) above earth.